Assessing Old Testament Allusions in the Book of Revelation

15 Pages·2010·1.04 MB·English

EQ 75:4 (2003), 311-325
David Mathewson
Assessing Old Testament Allusions in the
Book of Revelation
Dr Mathewson did his research on the use of the OT in Revelation; we are
indebted to him for this succinct survey of recent study on the role of the allu
sions in interpretation of the book.
Key words: Bible; Revelation; Old Testament; hermeneutics.
I. Introduction
It is now probably safe to say that there exists a consensus among
scholars that one of the interpretive keys to understanding the Apoc
alypse lies in giving an adequate rationale for the pervasive influence
of the OT on this book. Scholars never weary of pointing out that
although Revelation never once formally quotes from the OT ('It is
. Written'), it is densely packed with its vocabulary, themes and
imagery by means of allusion. Even whole sections of OT texts pro
vide the structural model for John's own composition (e.g. Ezekiel).
Not surprisingly, then, attention devoted to the use of the OTin Rev
elation haS escalated in recent years, with significant research being
produced on the influence of particular OT books throughout Reve
lation,-the presence of important OT themes, and the influence of
the OT in specific sections of Revelation.l At the same time, there
1 Most significantly cf. G. K Beale, The Use ofD aniel inJ lfUJish Apocalyptic Literature and
in the Revelati(Jn of St. John (Lanham, 1984); J. Vogelgesang, 'The Interpretation of
Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation' (Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1985); J.
Paulien, Decoding Revelation's Trumpets: Literary AllusionS and the Interpretation ofR ev
8:7-12 (Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 11; Berrien .
Springs, 1988); J. -Po Ruiz, Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic
Language in Revelation 16,17-19,10 (EUS, 23/376; Frankfurt an Main, 1989); R.
Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh,
1993); J. Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary
Antecedents and their Development USNTSup 93; Sheffield, 1994); S. Moyise, The Old
Testament in the Book ofR evelation USNTSup 115; Sheffield, 1995); G. K Beale,John's
Use of the Old Testament in Revelation USNTSup 166; Sheffield, 1998); D. Mathewson,
The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21.1-22.5 (Sheffield:
forthcoming) .
312 The Evangelical Q!.tarterly ,
remains significant disagreement as to the extent and significance of
John's use of the OT, since ,s tudy of the use of the OT in Revelation
is complicated by the absence of introductory formula which would
clearly signal OT dependence. How do we assess the presence of OT
allusions in the book of Revelation? '
n. Recent work on assessing OT allusions hi Revelation
Given the allusive nature of John's appeal to the OT, most of the
attention devoted to the utilization of the OT in Revelation has
focused on how we can discern whether an OT allusion is actually
present or not. When did the author intend an allusion? Or when is
the reader merely finding an allusion: or echo that is not really there?
The goal of recent study has been to provide a firmer basis upon
which to draw conclusions concerningJohn~s use of the OT: Thus, in
his ground breaking work on Isaiah in Revelation, J. Fekkes laments
the tendency of scholars to 'indiscriminately lump together primary,
secondary, and even, at times, nori-existent allusions'.2 By exercising
needed constraint the interpreter of Revelation can reduce the pos
sibilitiesto a more workable core of OT allusions. In order to bring
necessary controls to the process of determining OT influence,
scholars have attempteg to distinguish between 'allusions' and
'echoes'. The distinguishing factor between the two is the author's
conscious intention to point the reader to a previous OT text. Allu
sions are thought to reflect the conscious activity of the author, while
echoes by contrast are unconscious and unintentional and may only be
an indication of a mind already saturated with the OT. Accordingly,
J. Paulien criticizes scholars for their 'failure to recognize the differ
ence between direct or intentional allusions on the part of the author
and echoes, in whieh OT languag(! and themes are utilized, but ,no
intentional riference to any particular text is made'.3 Echoes are usually
thought to carry less (or no) interpretive significance since the
author was not consciously referring the reader to a prior OT text.
Consequently, scholars have been preoccupied with sifting possible
examples of OT influence in Revelation in an attelIlpt to, establish
" validity. In:' order to achieve this, potential allusions are frequently
classified'according to levels of certainty and probability"reflecting
the interpreter's confidence in identifying an allusion to the OT.
2 Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions, 15.
3 J. Pa:ulien, 'Criteria and the Assessment of Allusions to the Old Testament in the
Book of Revelation' in S. Moyise (ed.), Studies in the Book ofR evelation (Edinburgh
& New York, 2001), 119. Italics mine.
Assessing oU Testament Allusions in the Book of Revelation 313
One of the clearest examples is the work of Fekkes, who ranks pro
posed OT allusions to Isaiah in Revelation according to the following
threefold classificatory scheme: 1) Certain/virtually certain; 2) Prob
able/possible; 3) Unlikely/doubtful.4 Interpretive significance
should only be confidently attached to those instances which fall into
the first category. Exemplary is Fekkes's discussion of the phrase 'the
holy city, the new jerusalem' in Rev. 21:2, where he notes the possi
ble link with 'the holy city, jerusalem'in Is. 52:1.5 But given the fact
that 'the holy city, jerusalem' was a 'standard nationalistic agnomen
for jerusalem',6 Fekkes registers his uncertainty and places this
instance in the category 'Probable/possible' arid then drops it from
any further discussion. G. K. Beale also proposes a three-fold classifi
cation: clear allusion, probable allusion, possible alhision (echo).7 A
clear allusion is one in which 'the wording is almost identical to the
OT source, shares some common core meaning, and could not likely
have come from anywhere else'.8 By contrast, in a possible allusion
(echo) the wording or conceptual correspondence is only general.
The determining factor for Beale isthe author's conscious intention
to point the reader to a prior OT text. .
The most noteworthy treatment of criteria and methodology for
assessing OT allusions in Revelation is the work of Paulien. In his
most recent discussion of the issue Paulien advocates that scholars
become more consistent in their employment of terminology by
adopting appropriate categories such as 'probable allusion', 'possible
allusion', and 'echo'.9 He admits some value in discussing echoes, but
clearly distinguishes these from allusions which are undoubtedly
intentional on the part of the author of the Apocalypse. Paulien's ini
tial research investigated the use of the OT in Revelation 8, where he
analyzed the contribution often selected commentators to discussing
OTallusions in 8:7-12.10 The objective of his investigation of these
commentaries was to determine which OT passages these various
commentators .on the Apocalypse have detected behind 8:7-10.
4 Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions, 15, 280-81.
5 Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions, 230-31.
6 Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions, 230. Cf; Tob. . 13:10; Dan. 9:24; 1 Macc. 2:7;
2 Macc. 3:1; 3 Macc. 6:5; Philo, Leg. All. 347; 4Q504.4.12; Josephus,Ant. 4.70;
20.118; Mt. 4:5;27:53.
7 G. K Beale, The Book of Revelation (NIGTC;Grand Rapids/Carlisle; 1999), 78;
idem,John's Use, 62-3. Cr. also idem, Use ofDanie~ 43 n. 62.
8 Beale, Revelation, 78. Cf. also the earlier. assessment by A. Vanhoye,'L'utilisation du
Iivre d'Ezechiel dans l'A pocalypse', Bib 43 (1962) 476, who distinguishes broadly
between 'Utilisation certaine', 'Contacts Iitteraires', and 'Autres.influences'.
9, Paulien, .'Criteria', 127. .
10 Paulien, Decoding Revelation's Trumpets. Cr. 'Criteria'.
314 The Evangelical Qy.arterly
According to Paulien, the ten commentaries he examined in total
listed 288 possible allusions to the OT in 8:7-10, though in the end
they all ultimately agreed on only one OT allusion. An extended
comparison with the same ten commentaries on Revelation I~5
revealed a similar divergence and disagreement on the presence of
the OT in this section, confirming Paulien's conviction that scholars
are not-working with a consistent set of criteria and terminology
(,probable allusion', 'possible allusion', etc.)Y He goes even further
and by way of methodology suggests that, out of the ten commen
taries he is working with, when nine or ten agree on an OT allusion
it is usually an unquestionable alhision, so that the level of validity or
certainly increases or decreases in proportion to the number of com
mentaries which recognize it. Thus, based on a weighted list of allu
sions according to the number of the ten commentaries which sup
port a given allusion, Paulien suggests the following possible classifi
cation:
10 - 8.512 'certain' allusion
8.0 - 5.5 'probable' allusion
5.0 - 2.5 'possible' allusion13
In order to discern the level of certainty of a given allusion, poten
tial allusions are subjected to a variety of criteria, though these crite
ria are usually invoked implicitly and intuitively. The various criteria
utilized to determine whether an actual allusion is present or not can
be divided into factors internal to the text and factors external to the
text. Paulien suggests the following three criteria which are internal
to the text itself: (I).verbal correspondence (though this still leaves
unanswered the question of how many words must correspond
between a text in Revelation and the ostensible OT source); (2) the
matic parallels; (3) structural correspondence.14 Another important
criterion is that of recurrence: is the same OT text alluded to else
where by the author, or does the proposed allusion occur within a
cluster of other allusions to the OT? Other accessible criteria exter
nal to the text are availability (did the author and readers have access
11 Paulien, 'Criteria', 120.
12 Paulien explains that when an allusion seems certain to a commentator it receives
1 point. When a commentator seems in doubt about an allusion it receives only
1/2 point. Thus, the 8.5, 5.5, and 2.5 ratings.
13 Paulien, 'Criteria', 12l.
14 Cf.J. Paulien, 'Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the OT in Revelation',
BR 33 (1988) 41-45; Beale, Revelation, 78. For clear discussion of criteria for
dependence outside of Revelation see D. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typol
ogy (Edinburgh, 1993), 19-23; M. Thompson, Clothed With Christ: The Example and
Teaching ofJ esus in Romans 12:1-15:13 aSNTSup, 59; Sheffield, 1991), 15-36.
Assessing Old Testament Allusions in the Book of Rcuelation 315
to the source?), historical precedent (have other authors and texts
alluded to the same OT text?), and scholarly consensus (have previ
ous interpreters recognized the proposed allusion?).15 Most who
adhere to such an approach agree that it is more prudent to err on
the side of minimalism and caution than to permit countless paral
16
lels that are ambiguous or uncertain.
The above discussion on assessing OT allusions in Revelation
proves valuable in that it brings some objective control to the enter
prise of identifying OT allusions. Not only do the criteria and classi
fications provide justification for and methodological constraints
around uncovering OT allusions, but they also enable us to discard
17
parallels of dubious worth. For example,despite a previous sugges
tion that Is. 56:1-2 is alluded to in Rev. 1:1-3, Fekkes rightly objects to
this proposal due to the lack of correspondence in context and appli
cation, as well as the absence ofm ore substantive verbal parallels.
IS
And so Beale does not even mention Is. 56:1-2 in his extensive dis
19
cussion of Rev. 1:1-3.
m.
Assessing recent work on OT allusions in Revelation
-However, notwithstanding the virtues of the strategy discussed ~bove,
there are several shortcomings to this approach as a means of assess
ing the use of the OT in Revelation. First, the above attempt to objec
tify the process of assessing allusions is dependent on the ability to
discern the author's conscious intention in pointing to a prior text.
The greater the likelihood that the author intended a given allusion,
the greater the interpretive confidence that can be attached to that
allusion. However, while it is legitimate to invoke authorial intention
as a guide, the elusive nature of dealing with an allusive writing like
Revelation makes reducing OTallusions to the author's conscious
, intentionsproblematic.2o While in many cases conscious intention by
15 See further the discussion of criteria-in R Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of
Paul (New Haven & London, 1989), 29-32.
16 Paulien, 'Criteria', 128; Beale,John's Use, 20.
17 See the well-known warnings in S. Sandmel, 'Parallelomania',jBL 81 (1962) 1-13,
and more recently T. Donaldson, 'Parallels: Use, Misuse, and Limitations', EvQ55
(1983) 193-210. '
18 Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions, 107.
19 Beale, Rcuelation, 181-86.
20 For a defense of authorial intention as it guide to meaning in biblical texts see K.
J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids, 1998). Cf. the
informed debate in J. Pauline, 'Dreading the Whirlwind: Intertextuality and the
Use of the Old Testament in Revelation', 5-22; G. K. Beale, 'A Response to Jon
Paulien on the Use of the Old Testament in Revelation', 23-33; S. Moyise, 'Autho
rial Intention and the Book o(Revelation', 35-40 in AUSS 39 (Spring ,2001).
316 Tile Evanpical Q!un'lm,
the author to point the reader back to an OT text may be obvious, at
other times confidenceniay elude us. What may seem like an obvious
allusion to us could be the result of 'a memory so charged with Old
Testament words and thoughts' that the words unconsciously appear
on the pages of John's Apocalypse.21 Conversely, what Paulien or
Fekkes might label an 'echo' (reflecting unconscious intention)
could be the result of extensive shared knowledge between the
author and -his readers so that all :that is needed is a word or-two to
evoke an OT text or theme in the scripturally oriented minds of the
readers. Butin the absence of -the historical author to arbitrate sub
sequent interpretations of his work, definite conclusions will remain
tentative. All we have as a record of the author's intention is the com-
-municative act of the text itself. -
Furthermore, it is also possible that John himselfwas not aware of
-all the allusions or echoes in his composition. For example, an
author might allude to a previous text, and a subsequent interpreter
might point out associations or connections between the present text
and the text-alluded to that the author did not consciously intend, or
a reader might point out an allusion or echo that the author did not
consciously intend, both of which the author might nevertheless
acknowledge as valid and consistent with the overall meaning of
his/her thought and discourse.22 Or an author may not have carefully
signaled an allusion, so that it is lost to subsequent readers. ConceIv
ably, modern-day interpreters of John's Apocalypse might uncover
allusions or echoes to the OT, or observe connections between the
OT text alluded to and Revelation thatJ ohn may not have hadexplic
itly in mind, but which John would nevertheless acknowledge as allu
sions and consistent with his composition were he present to evaluate
later interpreters of his work.
All of this is not to conclude that authorial intention is' unneces
sary, unrecoverable or invalid. Rather, it merely serves as a reminder
of the limitations of discerning authorial intention when it comes to
judging OT allusions. At times interpretation is a matter ofplausibil
ity and intuitive judgment, especi'ally when dealing with allusions. A
better approach is to test potential OT allusions and echoes as to
whether they cohere with the text itself, in addition to what we can
know about the author's intention, rather than on the basis of what
21 H.B. Swete, _T he Apocalypse of St. John: The Greek Text With Introduction; Notes and
Indices (London, 1917), cliv.
22 See the well-known examples in U. Eco, Interfrretation and Overinterpretation (Cam
bridge; 1992),67-88. On some of the questions raised in relating authorial inten
tionto the use of the OT in the NT see P. B. Payne, 'The Fallacy of Equating Mean
ing With the Hliman Author's Intention',jET.S20 (1977) 243-52.
317·
can be proven to lie within the author's <:onscious. intention or
belong. to the category 'Certain/virtually certain ~ ;~3
.. In light of this, there emerges a second weakness in recent attempts
to assess OT allusions in Revelation. As I. Paul has rightly observed,
the above method and systems of classification are based more on the .
interpreter's confidence in discovering allusions rather than on what
appears to be actually going on in the text with a given· use of OT
24
influence. The labels 'Certain allusion', 'Probable allusion', 'Possi
bleallusion' etc. only express the confidence of the interpreter in
identifying an allusion, but say nothing about how an allusion or
echo appears to be functioning in the text, or how the author seems
to be using the OT (see below). This leads naturally to a third defi
ciencywith the above approach. Efforts to classify, label and objectify
OT usage as Fekkes and Paulien have .done, while valuable and an
important check on uncontrolled exegesis, often fail to get around to
discussing the interpretive significance of allusions and echoes. Thus,
in Paulien's recent treatment of the issue, there is virtually no atten
tion given to the interpretive significance of OT allusic)lls.25 Yet th~
interpreter's task is only half finished until he/she has explored the
exegetical and theological ramifications of OT allusions. The work
that accomplishes this most consistently is the recent commentary by
Beale, who vigorouslyanalyzes the theological significance ofJ ohn's
use of the OT throughout his entire commentary.26 Among the
numerous examples that could be adduced, Beale elegantly demon
strates that the warning against 'adding to' and 'subtracting from'
the book of Revelation found in 22:18-19 constitutes an allusion to
the law code in Dt. 4:1-2; 12:32. In addition to verbal similarities, 1)
contextually both warnings occur in relationship to warnings against
idolatry; 2) both urge a corresponding positive response which issues
in life (cf. Dt. 4:1; Rev. 1:3; 22:14); 3) the punishment for the unfaith
ful in both is 'plagues' (Dt. 29:1; Rev. 22:18). Presumably, this could
be the result of a mind so saturated with the OT that once again com
plete confidence as to whether the author actually intended an allu
sion eludes us. But Beale goes further to discuss the theological sig
nificance of this proposed allusion. To 'add to' John's prophecy is to
promote false teaching, mainly the idolatry that tempted the Asian
23 I. Paul, 'The Use of the Old T~stament in Revelation 12' in S. Mc;>yise (ed.), The.
Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays .in Honour oJJ L. North OSNTS~p,. 189;
Sheffield, 2000), 260; Payne, 'Fallacy'.
24 Paul, 'Use of the Old Testament' ,261. . ... ..
25 See. Paulien, 'Criteria', 127-29 for his suggestions for an agenda for future
research.
·26 Beale, Revelation. Cf. also idem,John:S Use. .
318 The Evangelical Q}tarterly
churches (cf. Rev. 2:14, 20). To 'take away from' the words ofJ ohn's
. prophecy is tantamount to violating the exhortations in Revelation
against idolatry.27 Consequently, these warnings do not reflect the
author's fear of subsequent tampering with his book by false teach
ers/8 but continue his hortatory appeal for unqualified obedience to
his work.
A final difficulty with the above approach is that Paulien's concern
to establish a weighted list of OT allusions based on a 'consensus' of
ten commentators says nothing about the possibility of uncovering
previously unrecognized allusions. Beale has proposed that the meta
tauta . . . ha dei genesthai meta tautafrom Rev. 4:1 (cf. 1:19) alludes to
Dn. 2:28-29 (2:28 [Theod.] ha dei genesthai ep' eschaton ton hemeron;
2:29 [Theod.] ti dei genesthai meta tauta) .29 I checked a selective list of
nine commentaries/works (different from Paulien's) in addition to
Beale to determine how well Beale's suggestion faired in light of
Paulien's method. However, out of the additional nine works I con
sulted, only the critical apparatus in UBSG~ mentioned Dn. 2:28-
29 in connection with Rev. 4:1, and even then it is not clear whether
it is considered an allusion or just a literary parallel. Of course, dif
ferent results may have obtained. based on a different selection of
commentaries. But given the results of my survey, Beale's proposal
would fall below the minimum 2.5 needed to even render it a 'Possi
ble' allusion. But whether or not one agrees with the significance
which he attaches. to it, Beale's proposal needs to be given serious
consideration based on its own merits and assessed for interpretive
significance. Moreover, the inconsistency that Paulien finds among
commentaries is not surprising since some of them were imprecise or
unconcerned with dealing with the use of the OT in Revelation in a
methodologically rigorous manner. Artd many commen.taries may
only be repeating what others before them have said. Although a
'consensus' of other commentaries provides a useful starting point in
surfacing potential OT influence, the value of Paulien's approach is
limited and minimal.
IV. ReflectionS on assessing the OT in Revelation
Rather than focusing attention solely on validating and classifying
OT usage, I would offer the following brief observations concerning
27 Beale, Revelation, 1150-52.
28 Aune, Revelation 17-22, 1230-32.
29 Beale, Revelation, 316-18. On Rev. 1:19 see 152-70, 216. Cf. idem, 'The Interpretive
Problem of Rev. 1:19', NuvT34 (1992) 360-87.
Assessing Old Testament Allusions in the Book ofR evelation 319
assessing OT allusions and echoes in Revelation. As I have suggested
at several points above, the discussion surrounding the use of the OT
in Revelation needs to move beyond classifying and substantiating
allusions based on perceived authorial intention and interpretive
confidence in identifying them, to focusing on the interpretive and
theological significance of a given allusion. or echo in Revelation.
What role does an OT allusion or echo play within the discourse of
Revelation? What someone might label a conscious allusion might
not play a very significant,role in John's discourse, or what would
appear to be only an 'echo' might turn out to be of crucial impor
tance.30 What difference does postulating this or that allusion actually
make in interpreting a given section of Revelation? For example,
what of the suggestion that the depiction ofJ erusalem as the holy city
in Rev. 21:2 derives from Is. 52:1? The correspondence between the
two texts consists of only three words.
Is. 52: 1: lerflsalaim 'ir ha'l'lode:5
Rev. 21:2: ten polin ten ha~an Ie:rousalem kainen
Fekkes discusses the potential for discovering an allusion, noting
especially that Is. 52:1 refers to eschatologicalJerusalem as does Rev.
-21:2, and that Is. 52:1 provides the influence for Rev. 21:27later.31 But
as observed above, he ultimately classifies it as a 'Possible allusion'
and so drops it from any further discussion. However, even ifFekkes's
reticence is justified, an examination of the broader context and
potential influence of this text on John's discourse is instructive and
pushes the discussion further. Isa. 52:1 belongs to a section of Isaiah
which constitutes a call to the exiles to leave corrupt and defiled
Babylon (52:11-12) and to enter restoredJerusalem/Zion (52:1-2), a
common theme in Isaiah 40-55 (cf. 48:20-21; 49:14-26).32 This move
ment from Babylon to Zion is also conceived of as a new Exodus (w.
11_12).33 By way of a new Exodus, God's people are to-flee bondage
in Babylon and travel to restored Zion as expressed in the polarity
between the two entities. An analogous movement can be found
within the discourse of Revelation. The new Jerusalem/Zion (Rev.
30 Paul, 'Use of the Old Testament', 261. -
-31 Fekkes; Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions, 230-31.
32 R Abma, 'Traveling from Babylon to Zion: Location and its Function in Isaiah 49-
55' ,]SOT 74 (1997) 3-28; R Clifford, Fair Spoken and PerSuading: An Interpretation of
Second Isaiah (New York, 1984), 4!"r47.
33 New Exodus connotations in Is. 52:1 are clearly suggested by 52:11-12: 'For you
shall go out in haste' (cf. Ex. 12:11); 'for the Lord will go before you, and the God
of Israel will be your rear guard' (cf. Ex. 13:21-22). ef. B. Anderson, 'Exodus
Typology in Second Isaiah' in B. Anderson and W. Harrelson, eds., Israel's Prophetic
Heritage: Essays in Honor ofJ ames Muilenburg (London, 1962), 177-95.
320 The Evangelical (blarterly
21:1-22:5) stands in antithesis to corrupt Babylon (17-18). Morever,
. the invitation to enter the new Jerusalem (21:1-2) has as it corollary
the call to flee (Exelthate ho laos mouex autes, 18:4) defiled Babylon.
"Likewise, the author views the journey from Babylon to the new
Jerusalem as a new Exodus (cf. 15:2-4; 21:3, 5a). The allusion to Is.
52:1 in Rev. 21:2, though certainty may continue to evade us, fimc
tions to contribute to the important contrast between new Jerusalem
and Babylon echoed from John's prophetic precursor. Therefore,
although it is difficult to confidently conclude that John intended
this allusion in 21:2 and that he intended all these points of corre
spondence, this text appears to play an important role in the overall
context of Revelation 17-21. This seems far more important than
determining into which precise category (Certain, Probable, Possi
ble, etc.) this example of OT usage should be placed or whether the
author intended it or not. Unfortunately, much discussion of the OT
in Revelation is prematurely preempted by strait jacketing a given
usage into a preferred category.
Consequently, while evoking criteria to determine validity is impor
tant in providing a measure of certainty and also constraint, discus
sion of OT allusions and echoes in Revelation must move beyond this
to ask how allusions 'and echoes actually function within the dis
course of Revelation. Moreover, observations about the use of the OT
in Revelation cannot "be restricted to only what the author con
sciouslyintended (though neither can it be inconsistent with what we
know about the author so that 'anything goes'), but must be
anchored in what appears to be going on in the text and may include
unconscious usages.34 Overall, it seems more desirable to discuss and
assess OT influence in terms of interpretive and semantic signifi-
cance than solely in terms of conscious authorial intention: '
Recent work done on echo and intertextuality opens up some pos
sibleavenues for sharpening our focus on the use of the OT in Rev
elation. Significant work done on the literary concept of 'echo' by J.
H,ollander and R. Hays in literary and biblical studies respectively
have suggested important ways in 'which to account for the signifi
cance of echoes.35 Hollander reminds us that textsbehaveIike echo
chambers, so that even a word ot phrase 'may easily carry rumOrs of
34 Haysoffers a balanced perspective when he states that 'a proposed interpretation
", must be justified with reference to evidence provided by the texts's rhetorical
structure and by what can be known through critical investigation about the
author and original readers '(Echoes of Scripture, 28).
35 J. Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion' in Milton, and After (Berkeley,
1981); Hays, Echoes ofS cripture.